A lot of people talk about authenticity. "I found this great, super authentic Armenian place!" or "the food at that new Thai restaurant isn't very authentic". It drives me nuts. What does authentic mean? That it complies with some standard of what has been decided constitutes the ingredients, styles and cooking methods of that cuisine? Who decided that? When did they decide? Was it a decision reached by consensus? Were the people who actually cook that cuisine consulted?
It's a meaningless term. It attempts to freeze a cuisine in amber, trying to constrain it to a set of ingredients, styles and methods that are familiar to or expected by that particular observer. Food culture changes over time and always has done. It's influenced by new discoveries, new immigrants, new agricultural techniques, fashion trends and an infinite number of other things. Is Italian food with tomatoes inauthentic? There were no tomatoes before Columbus. How about Szechuan food without chilies? Ditto Columbus. English food without pickle? Obviously an Indian influence at work there. Or who would claim that chicken tikka masala isn't a quintessentially British dish? One could say "ah, but the Italians have been using tomatoes for hundreds of years!" Fair point. When's the cut off date? How many years does something have to be used before it's authentic? 300? 100? 50? 25? It's a completely arbitrary number.
That's not to say that it's a worthwhile endeavor to just mix up any old thing. There's a reason "fusion" is often called "confusion". Ingredients have to be combined for a reason, not just thrown together in an attempt to do something cool or to take advantage of the latest food trends. Do those two things you're mixing together make sense together? Is it respectful of the ingredients and flavours? If the answer is yes to both, then I say mix away! If not, just leave it alone.
The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Is it authentic?" The question should be "Is it good?"
It's a meaningless term. It attempts to freeze a cuisine in amber, trying to constrain it to a set of ingredients, styles and methods that are familiar to or expected by that particular observer. Food culture changes over time and always has done. It's influenced by new discoveries, new immigrants, new agricultural techniques, fashion trends and an infinite number of other things. Is Italian food with tomatoes inauthentic? There were no tomatoes before Columbus. How about Szechuan food without chilies? Ditto Columbus. English food without pickle? Obviously an Indian influence at work there. Or who would claim that chicken tikka masala isn't a quintessentially British dish? One could say "ah, but the Italians have been using tomatoes for hundreds of years!" Fair point. When's the cut off date? How many years does something have to be used before it's authentic? 300? 100? 50? 25? It's a completely arbitrary number.
That's not to say that it's a worthwhile endeavor to just mix up any old thing. There's a reason "fusion" is often called "confusion". Ingredients have to be combined for a reason, not just thrown together in an attempt to do something cool or to take advantage of the latest food trends. Do those two things you're mixing together make sense together? Is it respectful of the ingredients and flavours? If the answer is yes to both, then I say mix away! If not, just leave it alone.
The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Is it authentic?" The question should be "Is it good?"
Comments
Post a Comment